tions of guilt, is enough, in their minds, to found an acquittal upon, where pofitive proof is wanting. I do not mean that juries fhould indulge conjectures, should magnify fufpicions into proofs, or even that they should weigh probabilities in gold fcales; but when the preponderation of evidence is so manifest as to persuade every private understanding of the prisoner's guilt; when it' furnishes the degree of credibility, upon which men decide and act in all other doubts, and which experience hath fhewn that they may decide and act upon with fufficient fafety; to reject such proof, from an infinuation of uncertainty that belongs to all human affairs, and from a general dread least the charge of innocent blood should lie at their doors, is a conduct which, however natural to a mind ftudious to its own quiet, is authorized by no confiderations of rectitude or utility. It counteracts the care and damps the activity of government: it holds out public encouragement to villainy, by confeffing the impoffibi-. lity of bringing villains to justice; and that fpecies of encouragement which, as hath been just now observed, the minds of fuch men are most apt to entertain and dwell upon. There are two popular maxims, which feem to have a confiderable influence in producing the injudicious injudicious acquittals of which we complain. One is "That circumftantial evidence fails short "of positive proof." This affertion, in the unqualified fenfe in which it is applied, is not true. A concurrence of well-authenticated circumftances composes a ftronger ground of affurance than pofitive teftimony, unconfirmed by circumstances, ufually affords. Circumftances cannot lie. The conclufion alfo which refults from them, though deduced by only probable inference, is commonly more to be relied upon than the veracity of an unfupported folitary witnefs. The danger of being deceived is lefs, the actual inftances of deception are fewer, in the one cafe than the other. What is called pofitive proof in criminal matters, as where a man fwears to the person of the prifoner, aud that he actually faw him commit the crime with which he is charged, may be founded in the mistake or perjury of a fingle witness. Such mistakes, and fuch perjuries, are not without many examples. Whereas, to impofe upon a court of juftice a chain of circumftantial evidence in fupport of a fabricated accufation, requires fuch a number of falfe witneffes as feldom meet together; an union alfo of fkill and wickedness which is ftill more rare; and, after all, this fpecies of proof lies much more open to difcuffion, 9 fion, and is more likely, if falfe, to be contradicted, or to betray itself by fome unforeseen inconfiftency, than that direct proof, which being confined within the knowledge of a fingle perfon, which appealing to, or ftanding connected with, no external or collateral circumftances, is incapable, by its very simplicity, of being confronted with oppofite probabilities. The other maxim which deferves a fimilar examination isthis-"That it is better that ten guilty "perfons escape, than that one innocent man "fhould fuffer.' If by faying it is better, be meant that it is more for the public advantage, the propofition, I think, cannot be maintained. The fecurity of civil life, which is essential to the value and the enjoyment of every bleffing it contains, and the interruption of which is followed by universal misery and confufion, is protected chiefly by the dread of punishment. The miffortune of an individual (for fuch may the fufferings, or even the death, of an innocent perfon be called, when they are occafioned by no evil intention) cannot be placed in competition with this object. I do not contend that the life or fafety of the meaneft fubject ought, in any cafe, to be knowingly facrificed: no principle of judicature, no end of punishment can ever require that. that. But when certain rules of adjudication must be pursued, when certain degrees of credibility must be accepted, in order to reach the crimes with which the public are infefted; courts of juftice should not be deterred from the application of these rules by every fufpicion of danger, or by the mere poffibility of confounding the innocent with the guilty. They ought rather to reflect, that he who falls by a mistaken fentence, may be confidered as falling for his country; whilft he fuffers under the operation of those rules, by the general effect and tendency of which the welfare of the community is maintained and upheld. CHAP. CHAP. X. OF RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, AND OF TOLERATION. 66 A Religious eftablishment is no part of Christianity, it is only the means of "inculcating it." Amongst the Jews, the rights and offices, the order, family, and succeffion of the priesthood were marked out by the authority which declared the law itself. Thefe, therefore, were parts of the Jewish religion, as well as the means of tranfmitting it. Not fo with the new inftitution. It cannot be proved that form of church government was laid down in the Christian, as it had been in the Jewish fcriptures, with a view of fixing a conftitution for fucceeding ages; and which conftitution, confequently, the difciples of Chriftianity would every where, and at all times, by the very law of their religion, be obliged to adopt. Certainly no command for this purpose was delivered by Chrift himself; and if it be shewn any that |